Christina Bothwell: Dissolving Autonomies

Christina Bothwell: Dissolving Autonomies      ROCKRIVER MAY 2014

Topics from the Glass Secessionism Facebook Group: 

                        narrative- materiality- content- material choice- evolution

CONTRIBUTIONS

Tim Tate voiced the longtime concerns of many and got these ideas out to the world.  While remaining true to his convictions, he has maintained endurance since he first wrote about Glass Secessionism. William Warmus has brought validity to this subject, sacrificed the easier road,  and engendered critical discussions on developing theorieis. Patrick Blythe's humility is accompanied by strength; we all benefit from his graciousness and guidance, not mention witnessing such growth in his work.  Christina Bothwell is as kind as Patrick said! I appreciate her personal path,  generosity,  and am honored by her permission in writing this essay. Much gratitude to all of the members of the GS group for retaining independent thought in the presence of diversity.  May we continue to witness the evolution of Glass as it integrates with Art in general.

The work of Christina Bothwell will guide an analysis of narrative and materiality.
This framework will address the current process of Secession from Studio Glass and suggest areas of regression.  

Independent growth is the root impetus for GS artists such as Bothwell.  In this vein, we will also examine how GS relates to other art that secedes. 

Concluding Notes:
-Infancy and maturation of GS.
-Glass as a material specific to GS.
-Evolution of multidisciplinary art away from compartmentalization
-Independent modes of Secession in Glass
-Functions of autonomy and plurality

MATERIAL PURPOSE

I selected Christina Bothwell's work because it embodies many of the GS concepts in this discussion. I personally identify with her approach. We both realized our intent by incorporating glass with ceramics. Our paths diverged, as we developed multimedia techniques that best communicated our vision. Ours were acts of neccesity, that happened to break from tradition. Glass Seccessionism provided a context for such glass that redefines a material's purpose..

BOTHWELL'S APPROACH

(scroll down to view image)
"Might As Well Be Spring" cast glass, raku clay, oil paints, 12″ x 15″ x 12″

Christina Bothwell makes figurative sculptures that blend glass, ceramics, paint, found objects, occasionally cement, and more.  She uses materials to enhance her personal narratives which stir great emotion in the viewer. I will be focusing on how Bothwell's sense of materiality creates a presence greater than ideas alone. This essay questions whether it is necessary or even possible for a deeply layered narrative to be autonomous from its own materiality.

BACKGROUND

In Glass Secessionism, the relationship between content and material has parameters, in which ideas are paramount, and the subject is not based on materials. Thistledown notion is designed to ensure that GS works are not derived from the technical or material aesthetic  in Studio Glass. GS seeks a different conversation about glass.   Rejection topics on material maintains a focus on the narrative interests of GS. However, the glass material is still part of how GS artists make their ideas succeed.  Material is inherent in that any a final narrative will vary depending on the material used, and how it was treated.

The Glass Secessionism group has a pinned post from an article written by Tim Tate.  It is a reference guide for discussions. All participants are asked to read it.  They are not required to agree with the article or identify as Glass Secessionists. The Tate article is designed to keep topics on track and provide answers to frequently asked questions. 

PROVIDED DEFINITIONS

In addressing narrative and materiality, Tate states that Glass Secessionism...

1. "tends to include a focus on narrative.  I (Tate) define narrative as ideas and concepts that exist autonomously from their own materiality."

2. "is not in the form of abstract expressionism."

Since the date of the article,  Tate has further explained these points.

- "autonomous" does not mean there is a wall between narrative and material.
(Autonomy is freedom from external control or influence, self-governance, independence self-determination)

- "abstract expressionism"  means "abstract".
(In this context, abstract works are based on color, form, and are technique driven)

-"materiality" refers to the material qualities of glass that have visual apeal, such as light transmission,  color,  and fluidity. 

FORMALISM

"Formalism" would be my preferred framework for the above terms

    Formalism is the study of art by analyzing and comparing form and style—the wa  objects are made and their purely visual aspects.

I sought clarification on the above statements. To the best of my ability and research,  I have interpreted these tenets. I have also inferred the intended use of the above terms,  based on discussions.  While the above words in quotation are not consistent with their historical definitions, they are consistent with their intent. 

Formalism is at the root of the above uses of "materiality" and "abstract". May the reader keep in mind that I use the given words based on their function in the GS paper.   Additionally,  I will  refer "abstract", rather than "formal",  although the definition of "abstraction" has been under scrutiny.

The GS goal is to identify trends in 21st Century glass. Contemporary works tend to avoid Formalism.  Concrete Narratives and Representationalism have become a prevalent example of how to do this. I will contend that  Intentional uses of materiality are not necessarily "abstract" or "formalist". 

A SEPARATION FROM STUDIO GLASS

Glass Secessionism changes the subject in glass. Narrative has been the primary example of how to do that. Discussions avoid the topic of materiality, as it could misguide the separation from Studio Glass. 

By distancing itself from topics on materiality, GS maintains that there is a definition of suitable content

While I support the intent of Glass Secessionism,  I write this essay to examine whether it is logically possible to make successful art if narrative is more important than material. One member pointed out that this is not different from the Studio Glass propensity to place material before narrative.

Does the set of GS terms include those who Secede in their own way and for their own reasons?

MATERIALITY IS NOT ABSTRACT

The rationale to separate from pure formalism is that abstract work undermines the content driven tenet of Glass Secessionism. However "materiality" and "abstraction" are not the same. I value the marriage between a story and the material that tells it. The way a material is used is a crucial element in communicating intent. Placing value in materiality, does not necessarily result in only abstract works. Furthermore, not all abstract works have a sense of materiality.

At this point, the essay need go no further, if I misunderstand. Apologies now, if the discussion is based on misconception.
However, my own lack of clarity may reflect the questions of many. After numerous GS threads, it is not obvious (to me) if this Secession process intends to devalue materiality.

Can the Visual Artist utilize "materiality" to create non-abstract content?

MEANS TO AN END

Glass Secessionism finds content in narrative, story,  concept, or idea.  The material is a means to this end: the artist's intent. GS works that are idea driven must still be made partly in glass. This is Secessionism IN glass not FROM glass. The choice of glass as a material is significant to the artist's intent.

One of the GS goals is to integrate works that use Glass into the greater Art dialog. GS enjoys the execution of an idea that uses many materials. The breeding of glass with other materials is a component of how GS integrates into Art. It is not done through content alone.

The following examination of Christina Bothwell's work focuses on her choice to use glass,  although she does integrate it with other materials. (Presumably,  the Glass Seccessionist has a notion of how the material properties of glass best articulate their narrative.)

MATERIALITY AND  AUTONOMY

Bothwell says that she was drawn to glass because of its transparency, that it was like water.
Her dreamlike inner spirits are contained by outer figures.  Partially obscured,  the core is visible from an underworld of the emotive glass. Infact, her use of a material quality (translucency) results in works that are NOT abstract. She does not use the material symbolically, nor is there any other material she could use to tell her story. For Bothwell, materiality emotes the relationship between the internal and external, the parent and child, the conscious and subconscious, and the past and present.

Bothwell also realized that parenthood challenged her personal autonomy, as she became interconnected with the new lives she created. Her characters are inseparable. We sense a peaceful calling from an inner life that is ever present, though not always visible. In some of her works, we see these phases of life. As Bothwell's children grow,  memories shift focus as souls  identify new bonds. In general, Bothwell's life and art are transitory, autonomy asserts itself  in times of separation and isolation, new relationships arise and become grounded after personal transition.

MATERIAL CHOICE AND NARRATIVE

I would like to elaborate on the importance of what I call a "material choice",  which is determined by the artist's personal motivation to use glass. The choice of material may be a means to an end, but for Bothwell, the materiality of the glass is not an end in itself. Materiality is pivotal to the content.
Before becoming a glass caster, Bothwell worked in clay and found it restricted her.
Ceramics in isolation had a feeling of heaviness and density that restricted her narratives. 
Infact, the stories themselves would be almost impossible to execute without her material choices.
I agree that her general motivations for making art, "exist autonomously from their own materiality".
However, the success of her work is in how she makes a "material choice" and utilizes "materiality".

The power of this artwork does not come from the story alone, but is uniquely felt through the dialog of material qualities. The glass component gives her work an inner luminosity and sense of the ethereal. In contrast is the aged, rough, and opaque clay portions located at the head and extremities.  The soul of her characters has an interior world, while the clay sections are still solid, and restrained. Materiality is part of how she adds detail to the story and identifies symbolic components of the figure..

Her initial narrative is in isolation until she uses materiality as a means to a greater end. In general, a story alone can lack dimensionality, just as material alone can be abstract. Neither can be evocative of the artist's intent without the other. The Glass Secessionism notion that works be "idea driven", still requires that the artist intends to use materiality to better execute a their narrative.

MATERIAL INFLUENCE ON CONCEPTS 

The Bothwell is also an example of how concept and material are enhanced by being interrelated. 
The act of working with glass transformed her narrative potential and  transformed the capacity of her concepts. Bothwell was once restricted by clay,  but her ideas have since been expanded by glass.

Material sensitivity leads Bothwell to expose concepts that may not have otherwise been considered.
Her multi-dimensional works are presented as layers of the subconscious, memories, passing of time, autonomy, and an inner-life. In Bothwell's work, the specific material quality of the glass allows for the viewer see her figures relate to the world on many levels simultaneously. To me, the development and presentation of ideas in her works do not portray an autonomy from their own materiality. 

Additional note from a GS discussion on narrative, autonomy, and materiality:
A highly respected GS identified artist noted that his ideas evolve during the process of working. The original intent is alway there, but he also listens to his materials. The narrative deepens as he works. When a process shows him something new, other projects sprout from those material experiences.
He does not compartmentalize these categories.

MATERIALITY VS. MATERIAL DRIVEN

Material choice is how the artist arrives at glass. The artist realizes that some material property of glass provides the best mode of communication. The artist applies their intent to establish a materiality unique to their narrative.  Ultimately, materiality becomes one of the drivers in alternative approaches to  narratives in glass.

The topic of glass as a material choice has been circumvented by GS for the sake of clarity. However, the avoidance of "materiality" presents a thin view of glass as a material. The GS position is that the more seductive aspects of glass such as light and transparency, detract from a focus on content.  We know that material quality is the reason any artist selects a material and the GS artist exercises material choice. If they do not use glass, I will assume that particular work will not be "Glass" Secessionism.

There are material aspects of glass that are being redefined as a result of works made by GS artists. Some works are inspired by a conscious retreat from simplistic definitions of the material. It seems that in the process of purging, GS has overlooked the material developments in the Secession. By associating materiality with the abstract and technically driven, GS unintentionally creates a closed compartment for innovations in the glass material. Placing ideas over materials further filters the works, and shines a light on Narrative.  A multimedia, pluralistic intent may be present, or even assumed. However, when narratives are viewed as "autonomous from their own materiality",  this is an inadvertent demotion of glass as a material.

CURRENT EVOLUTIONS

The Tate paper was written at a time when it was crucial to cut all ties to the past.  For more than a decade, glass artworks have consistently been seceding.  GS is positioned to act as if it has already separated from Studio Glass. GS defined a Secession from Studio Glass, using Photo Secessionism as a starting point. This format intentionally rejected topics in the glass material itself. As seen above, there are reasons for de-emphasizing material, as well as (unintended) implications.

The overall tone of this glass era differs from the days of early photography.   The Photo Secessionism model was developed during a time when art materials were not freely mixed. In the 21st Century, there is an evolution in which art concepts and materials are blended. Cross-breeding and material innovations are prevalent. 

We are in a new place of Art in general, and Glass Secessionism is a great example of this development.  However, the model GS is based on does not address this.  Some have explained that this was done so by design, to identify the face of the Transition Period itself, and not the broader or future context of Art. The goals of both Secessions were to break away from an autonomy of practices and integrate into Fine Art. 

SECESSION IN GLASS

The omission of material discussion engenders the notion that materiality in glass can only become abstract or technical. Perhaps GS is not ready to include material evolutions in glass and revisit the topic of materiality. However, material development is already happening in narrative works posted on GS Facebook.

Material evolution is an under examined part of the secession process.  The material secession in glass has been quarantined and has yet to be fully encouraged. Perhaps this was designed to avoid a regression back to approaches that are shallow when compared to the idea driven tenets of GS.. Will untapping the potential of glass as a material create misinterpretations of the act of secession?

PRESENT DAY PLURALISM

Pluralism denotes a diversity of views and stands rather than a single approach or method of interpretation:

There is value in the material aspect of Secession in Glass. Furthermore, materiality,  innovation,  and content are all components of the resulting permutations in 21st Century Glass and Art. Above all, a singular approach undermines the value of glass as a material. Photographers still use innovative techniques in concert with narrative.  Photography has seceded. We do not need to displace materiality in order to make 21Century Art that uses glass. 

Parental wisdom must be the basis for GS to discourage expansion. The tenets have a tone of caution which rightfully protect its innocent stages from misguidance.  Prior to maturity,  GS may need to maintain isolated boundaries, like a parent protecting a child.  When it is time to cut these ties, GS can exit the separatist phase and encourage a plurality of approaches. We will enter present day art making that places value in the yet undefined. GS would be giving responsibility to the artist to create their own vision of how and why they secede.

DISSOLVING AUTONOMIES

Autonomy is defined as freedom from external control or influence, self-governance, independence self-determination.

 In writing this essay, I realized that the use of "autonomy" in a GS definition of narrative creates limitations in the integration process. While it is one person's view,  the definition itself has hindered the discussion of "materiality".  GS aims toward a Glass Art that is not a self-limiting category.  Although glass was once confined, artists took risks and intersected with other mediums and techniques, forming hybrids and permutations. The notion of autonomous aspects of content is already dissolving before our eyes, in GS as well..

CONCLUSION

I examined the limitations of narratives that are considered autonomous from their own materiality.  Glass Secessionism may not be ready for a self-defined secession that intertwines art concepts and materials. However, Contemporary Glass Art evolves as it deals with complex narratives and uses multiple materials, often in unexpected contexts. 

The path of the artist is no longer defined by the use of one medium. Glass Secessionism is a microcosm of the broader establishment of works that blend media and create offsprings that are then re-bred with concepts normally associated with another material. Narrative which was once associated with painting, photo, and video is an unusual presence in Glass. This unexpected use of glass is a genre of secession, but not the only way to secede. Breaking the boundaries of a medium or concept is part of the multidisciplinary face of all 21st Century Art.  

Christina Bothwell's work exemplifies a melding of narrative and materiality, which is absent of autonomy in content and material. Her hybridizations are part of a larger art movement away from a singularity of material and concepts. Present day plurality breaks the boundaries between disciplines. By rejecting separations, we are dissolving autonomies.

Image: Christina Bothwell
"Might As Well Be Spring" cast glass, raku clay, oil paints, 12″ x 15″ x 12″